Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Where Are The Bears?

Note: Market notes and leading economic data will not be not updated in this post. Since I am specifically updating equity sentiment in-depth, there is no real need to update other matters until the next post. Nothing dramatic will change from today until later on in the week.

Featured Article
It has now been about a year since I did a major sentiment post on the equity market. Back in late September and early October of 2011, I was insisting that if I had to choose between equities, bonds or cash - I would have chosen to buy equities. While there was the possibility of a recession, personally I remained in the camp that we would not experience negative GDP quarters until later on in the cycle. It is very important to remember that back in late September 2011, market conditions were one of forced liquidation, very elevated volatility; extremely negative sentiment surveys; large hedge funds losses; very high levels of institutional cash; extreme put buying; total panic in fund outflows and finally corporate insiders who are considered to be smart money were scooping up bargains at the fastest pace since the March 2009 bottom.
Nothing stays the same for a long period of time and just as everything in life always changes, so do market conditions. It is amazing what a year can do. Fast forward to September of 2012 and the US equity market was recently up 30% on annualised basis, as we can see from the chart below. If you think that is quite an amazing performance within a 12 month period - mind you on the back of global economic deterioration - you should have a sneak peak at the German DAX 30. Within just 12 months, the DAX 30 has managed to rally from below 5,000 towards almost 7,500 - an astonishing 50% gain. The DAX 30 has only ever performed better coming out of a recession or during the stock mania of the late 1990s.

Both of these charts now signal that we are most likely at an intermediate top of some kind. Keep in mind that strong performance coming out of a recession, seen in 2003 and 2009, is quite normal post a major bear market. Having said that, when the bull market ages towards its 3rd or even 4th year, powerful performance like the one we have witnessed over the last 12 months - while fundamentals deteriorate - is more closely linked to speculation and signal that a more significant top could be in place. Away from the performance indicators, let me put forward a write up which paints the completely opposite picture to the one we saw in September and October of 2011.

Volatility: The VIX measures the implied volatility of near term at the money S&P 500 options. VIX will typically rise when the market drops and fall when the market rises, and while this is not always the case the correlation is clear. High volatility signals a capitulation bottom is in place, while low volatility is associated with complacency (especially during deteriorating fundamentals). Currently the VIX has been trading within the "danger zone" for several months. Recent readings have managed to close at the lowest levels since the 2007 market top and more importantly the VIX's 200 day moving average has edged down to a "17" handle, which is the lowest long term average since the 2011 market top. As already discussed before, central banks have intervened to suppress volatility... for the time being.
Now... I know what some of you bulls are thinking. You will argue that the VIX could stay at low levels for a prolonged period of time. That is fair enough. However, one should never argue any point without first understanding the underlying conditions and context. Here are two points that state why I personally believe the VIX will not yet trace out a period of low volatility like we saw in 2003-07:
  1. Fundamentally, underlying conditions in 2003-07 were one of a global economic boom including BRICs, rapid credit growth, global housing and a commodity boom. Today, the global conditions are experiencing a huge amount of headwinds (which we have covered on this blog a million times) and as long as these issues remain unresolved every "band-aid" fix from governments and central banks will eventually fail and the volatility (fear) will spike again and again.

  2. Technically, if the VIX was to remain at low levels for an extended period of time, it won't do so after a market rally of 120% (S&P from March 09), but rather the VIX tends to fall at the beginning of a bull market and flatlines for years. Notice how in early 2003, just as the bull market started, the volatility died down (due to strong fundamentals) and remained quiet for years? In my opinion, it is ridiculous to think that the VIX will further calm near a peak of an aged bull market instead of at its birth, like we saw in 2003.
Sentiment Surveys: The Investor Intelligence sentiment survey is conducted weekly and the bearish reading of the survey is one of the indicators I give most attention. The survey is based on 140 advisors aka "market pros" and their stance on the market, which can be either bullish, bearish or neutral. While this indicator signalled extreme bearish readings in September 2011, since the beginning of 2012 the bearish readings have remained very low. High levels of bearish sentiment is usually needed for the markets to rise higher, as it indicates the majority of participants are not invested. This is usually known as a "wall of worry".
Today, the sentiment picture is far away from a "wall of worry" rather one of comfort and complacency. Consider that even during the 10% correction in May, bearish sentiment did not rise, which indicates that we never really saw a true capitulation of fear at the last intermediate bottom around 1,266 on the 1st of June.  Relatively low bearish sentiment readings for a prolonged period, usually signal that the market is close to some type of a significant top, rather then a bottom. Similar occurrences were witnessed during late 2006 through early 2007, late 2009 through early 2010 and late 2010 through to early 2011 (chart above). All of them led to meaningful corrections in the coming months.
Staying with the topic of extremely low bearish sentiment, the chart above paints a similar picture. The National Association of American Investment Managers (NAAIM) tracks active fund manager's exposure within the market place. We can see that, instead of paying close attention to the range of exposure, I find it is much more important to track the length of time where manager's beliefs become crystallised towards a certain trend. The chart clearly shows that periods of prolonged bullish belief without any bears, tends to lead to significant under-performance for the equity market. Since we aren't just coming out of a recession like in late 2009, the current lack of bearish sentiment in an aged bull market signals we are much closer to a top.
Various other sentiment surveys are all flashing warning signals. The chart above, thanks to Elliot Wave International, shows that retail investors are now "all aboard" the market rally. Bullish sentiment readings are now at the highest level since the market top in 2007. Other sentiment indicators worth paying attention to:
  • Consensus Bullish % Index currently stands at 72% bulls. While the sentiment was slightly higher at 78% bulls in March of 2012 prior to the market selling off 10% into May, it is important to realise that the readings are highly elevated from the October 2011 low, when we saw only 27% bulls. This is definitely a warning signal from a contrarian point of view.
  • The Hulbert Stock Sentiment shows readings of +53%. That means "market pros" are now recommending their clients to be +53% net long, while exposure for the higher beta Nasdaq is even higher at +65%. Consider that only a few months ago during the May sell off, advisors recommended -20% net short exposure. We've come a long way in a short period of time.
Cash Levels: If you listen to all the market gurus, experts and analysts on CNBC or Bloomberg, you get the impression that hardly anyone is invested in the current bull market. If that is true, how the hell  did the market climb from 666 on the 6th of March 2009 all the way to 1465 in recent days? Someone had to buy it right, otherwise it wouldn't have risen. And it takes cash to push the price of any asset, including the stock market, to higher levels. Basically, that's just common sense. However, the current buzz words seem to be that "there is a lot of cash sitting on the sidelines" or an even better one that "there is abundance of liquidity around" and finally a Pavlov's dogs favourite is that "you shouldn't short the market because central banks will support it".

If all of these phrases sound awfully familiar to you, that is because you probably heard them being thrown left, right and centre by market "pros" from CNBC at the previous market tops in 2007 or 2011. I was reading Marc Faber's February 2007 newsletter the other day and this is what I came across:
"The last point I should like to make about the widely used buzzword “excess liquidity” is the following. Did anyone hear about “excess liquidity” at the markets’ lows in October 2002, and last June after just a modest correction? 
But I have heard the words of “there is just too much money around”, “the market will never decline because foreigners will continue to buy”, “should the market decline the government will support it”, “plenty of liquidity will drive prices higher” in Japan in the late 1980s, in the Asian emerging markets just ahead of the crisis in 1997, and in the midst of the NASDAQ bubble. Words like “excess liquidity” and “record corporate profits” are more closely associated with important market tops than with market lows!" ~ Marc Faber
I searched and searched and then searched some more, but I found it hard to find any real data that supports the fact that "there is plenty of cash on the sidelines." Instead, I found the opposite. The chart above shows the monthly survey by AAII in regards to their portfolio allocation. Participants  have a choice of either stocks, bonds or cash. As the chart shows, currently cash levels are extremely low at 18%. Cash levels above 25% tend to signal a minor buying opportunity, while cash levels towards 35% tend to signal a major buying opportunity. Furthermore, cash levels are also very low in the following indicators:
If there was plenty of cash on the sidelines, it would show somewhere, somehow - that is for sure. All of the links above show that, be it mutual funds, money market funds or hedge / pension funds, one thing is for certain - cash levels range from low, complacent readings to dangerously low levels in some cases.

Fund Positioning: Another myth in the market place currently circulating around (usually heard a lot near market peaks) is that funds are currently underinvested or underexposed to the current market rally. According to the latest CFTC Commitment of Traders report, hedge funds and other large speculators are extremely net long high beta technology shares, which tends to be a great proxy for the overall market (chart below). 
Furthermore, the recent NYSE Margin Debt report while not as high as 2007 market peak, showed that leveraging and gearing levels for funds is quite high. If funds weren't participating or being exposed to the rally, why is the margin debt so high?

The recent Merrill Lynch Hedge Fund Monitor report showed that the estimated net holdings for hedge funds remains very elevated, even after the June correction (chart below). Since the chart above is outdated and we know that the market shot straight up in August and September, we can imagine that hedge fund exposure could now be extremely high or even close to record levels. Merrill Lynch also shows that the exposure to cyclical sectors is also very elevated.

I find that very puzzling because cyclical sectors have under-performed the overall market by a wide margin since early 2011. In that regard, it seems that hedge fund managers are still in denial when it comes to falling corporate earnings, a weakening manufacturing cycle and overall deteriorating economic fundamentals. A classic mistake is to continue to remain heavily exposed to an asset class even after it tops and starts sliding down the slope of hope.
Corporate Activity: Gary Kaminsky of CNBC was on last night (Asian time) trying to convince the viewers that while mutual fund outflows continue to signal that retail investors are not participating in the recent rally, the really bullish signal was the very high level of Corporate Buybacks. I personally didn't really listen to the whole presentation, but straight away it should be obvious to anyone that high levels of Corporate Buybacks are not a buy signal. Quite to the contrary, they tend to be a contrarian sell signal.
The same data is presented in the chart above, thanks to JP Morgran's recent newsletter (shout out to a friend from Paris). I've quickly overlapped the S&P 500 with the Corporate Buyback data, so one can easily understand that this is much more of a contrarian signal than anything else.  The green line, which is a 6 month moving average, shows that elevated levels of Corporate Buybacks tend to occur near major market tops (2007 and 2011), while depressed levels of Buybacks tend to occur near major market bottom (2009). While the chart is slightly outdated, I could assume as prices rallied higher into September and the so called Draghi / Bernanke Puts have been announced, corporate buybacks probably soared.
What I find very interesting is the fact that Corporate Directors have bought the 8th highest amount of shares in dollar terms during June of this year, while at the same time these same Corporate Directors are heavy sellers of stocks from the recent report (chart thanks to Technical Take blog). Does anyone find that amazing? Here we have Directors ordering high Buybacks to push share prices to elevated levels and at the same time, these same guys are selling their own stock holdings for very handsome profit, which has been benefited by Buybacks. I don't know if this is making you scratch your head or not, but pretty much we have a bunch of "crooks" running the show these days. Regardless, from InsiderScore.com:
"Insider selling levels remain moderately high heading into the end of Q3'12. From a historic perspective the volume of activity has not been particularly egregious, however, the selling has been persistent throughout the quarter and sellers have shown far more conviction (e.g. more Sell Inflections than Buy Inflections, Cluster Sales than Cluster Buys, etc.) than buyers on a macro and company level."
Consumer Confidence: The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment readings came in close to 4 year highs earlier this month. At the same time, the stock market is also at four year highs. Year on year change in Consumer Confidence has been one of the biggest on record, and while that tends to be positive coming out of a recession, public optimism is never a good signal for an aged bull market.
Another major warning signal is that more affluent and wealthier Consumers are much more confident relative to those with smaller net incomes. Why is this so important? These individuals are much more likely to have exposure to equities and other risk assets (corporate bond / real estate etc). Consider that these individuals were very optimistic in late 2006 and early 2007, just prior to a market top; and at the same time very pessimistic in early 2009 as the market crashed. Their current confidence level, mainly thanks to Helicopter Ben Bernanke, has them thinking that it is impossible for the stock market to decline. From a contrarian point of view, this is a major negative.
Summary: While a year ago, we had panic and fear rule the market, the current market conditions have me wondering where are all the bears? Weather we look at the remarkable performance of S&P 500 or DAX 30, extremely complacent levels of volatility, overly optimistic sentiment surveys, very low levels of cash, high risk exposure by hedge funds, the high level of corporate buybacks mixed together with a high level of insider selling or the elevated consumer confidence relative to last year - they all tend to send a signal that the market seems to be forming a more meaningful top around the current levels. Furthermore, while this post is not about fundamental analysis, let us not forget that we are now very late in the business cycle and a recession is most likely around the corner (chart below).
Finally, if there is one major indicator to sign of excessive speculation and overwhelming bullishness within the market environment, then it has to be the darling of the stock maker itself - the Apple parabolic. In his July 2012 newsletter, Marc Faber quotes Mr Newman on the following about Apple:
“...in the three months from the beginning of March to the end of May, transaction in AAPL comprised one of every $16 traded in the U.S. market, very likely the most concentrated focus on one stock in the stock market history. The dollar trading volume in just this one issue equated to $23 of GDP, or all business transacted for the entire country during the three months period.”
Trading Diary (Last update 05th of September 12)
  • Long Positioning: Long focus is towards the secular commodity bull market, with positions in Precious Metals and Agriculture. The largest commodity position is held in Silver, due to central banks gearing to print money, as the global economic activity deteriorates. If a negative reversal occurs and global risk asset volatility rises, reducing positions will be appropriate. NAV long exposure is about 100%.
  • Short Positioning: Short focus is towards the secular equity bear market due to deteriorating global economic activity. Exposure is held short in Junk Bonds, Technology, Discretionary and Dow Transportation. Tech stocks like the Apple parabolic and Amazon have been shorted with long dated OTM puts. Put options have also been purchased on the Pound and the Loonie (long USD). NAV short exposure is about 70%.
  • Watch-list: A major short in due time will be US Treasury long bonds, as they are extremely overbought and in a midst of a huge bubble mania. While Grains have exploded up, Softs still present amazing value for long term investors, with Sugar being my second favourite commodity (after Silver). Japanese equities are down about 80% from their all time high over two decades ago and offer some great value.
What I Am Watching

51 comments:

  1. Some guy on CNBC just said all of those three quotes regarding cash on sidelines, liquidity and central bank supporting rally. These guys all sound the same every single day. It is as if they are reading from a same script before they go on TV.

    ReplyDelete
  2. IMHO, it's extremely hard to exactly pinpoint a top or bottom. I gave on it already.

    This AM, I covered financial shorts I started at the fed anouncement high and went long miners again. Would make more money if I didn't sell miners in the first place. My game plan is the end of 2010 script, ie end of nov 2010 = now. Lets see how it plays out this time. There will be a huge sell off for sure, just not sure how soon. November is my best guess.

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gret blog man. I really enjoy. You call wery well market like Agriculture and Silver. Well done my man. You also wery good for selling Oil. You guys see Oil is $88 now. Tiho said don't by oil last weeks. Market top here? Dunno, I see you see we all see soon you know. You call market good.

    Fan from Czech Republic - Ivan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Always a pleasure to read your blog

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  5. Open-ended QE has scared shorts away - can't blame them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is some great stuff. I always appreciate your analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tiho,

    Funny that you mentioned Faber back in february 2007, because that was when i was trying to short the markets myself, too. I failed miserably and was stopped out by may or june that year. Markets roared for couple of months longer before rolling over. I made no money on that and was simply too early, which is as bad as being completely wrong.

    As for the cash on the sidelines statement, it's a bit inaccurate. The retail money is mostly parked in bonds. The bond allocation, while suffered short term in the last couple of weeks, and it's correcting now, it's otherwise mind boggling.

    IMHO, the final top will not happen until panic selling of bonds is not completed.

    Regards,
    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.bankfotek.pl/view/1333287
    bear case

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just fantastic stuff. i love reading it.

      Delete
    2. So what do I do with that chart? Is it really that simple to make money all the way down to 880?

      Delete
  9. I understand the US public has been pouring money into junk bond funds to try to earn some yield. This activity taking place when the economy is on the brink of recession. NG (not good).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for the nice comments from everyone. I would like to make a further observation regarding the comment about fund flows from Stocks into Bonds:

    Majority of retail investors continue to quote how money is flowing into bonds out of stocks and that is amazingly bearish for the Treasuries and bullish for the S&P 500. However, when have retail investors ever been right on anything? How many retail investors do you know, that do their research properly and question everything without just following the herd? And how many retail investors are actually wealthy and made fortunes in the market? I do not know many.

    The fact of the matter is that mums and dads, who have been taking money out of stocks, have been going to bonds. So that part is right. But Mr Bernanke has reduced rates to such low levels, that it doesn't pay to be in Treasuries at all. I have numerous research charts of fund flows from EPFR, which shows that Investment Grade and Junk Grade has received just about 80% to 90% of bond fund flows over the last several years.

    So thanks to the help of financial planners and market experts, who correctly told mums and dads to buy Nasdaq in 99 for the long haul and Real Estate in 2006 as a safest / wisest tangible investment "that never goes down", these same guys are now back again... telling mums and dads to buy risk Bonds like Junk, because their yield is so much better than Treasuries. Typical quotes I have heard from a lot of financial planners are that these assets are bonds and it makes sense to buy them as they are "safer than stocks".

    In other words, majority of bond fund inflows have gone into corporate and junk funds, which actually have equity like characteristics and behaviour. In other words, these are risk on assets. And once again, it is thanks to Mr Bernanke who has distorted and intervened into markets, and no created unintended consequences. Helicopter Ben's fiddling in the Bond market has pushed so many investors higher up the risk threshold, precisely where they shouldn't be taking that much risk as they are planning for retirement. So now mums and dads are loaded up on Junk Bonds at record low historical interest rates. What comes next?

    When the Junk Bond bubble bursts, the equity market will go down with it as the VIX spikes!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Right or wrong, this blog is always straight to the point. Best blog hands down.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thank you for your update.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tiho:

    It is interesting that as the market has been rising that the public is pulling money out = no trust. Usually the public adds funds when the market goes higher. If new money is not coming into the market I think it makes it difficult for the market to push higher other than short covering. Putting these funds into junk bonds because they are safer than stocks is an amazing piece of financial advice. I was around in the early `1990s when junk bonds blew up in US and enough time has lapsed that people forget or simply don't know what happened back then. A recession in the early 1990s, too, put the hit on junk bonds and also the stock market. Here we go again................

    ReplyDelete
  14. Quick data update: This mornings Durable Goods Orders from Aircraft from Automobiles was awful. Recent GDP data revision, which the market already knew anyway, was pushed down to 1.3%. This shows US economy is now completely stalling...

    So in a few months, as data gets even worse, they are going to print more money. But printing money does not increase economic activity too much at all. This loop between weaker and weaker data, followed by more and more money printing, followed by more weak data and than more money printing, is going to be here for awhile and most likely lead to a total disaster down the road.

    Quick sentiment update: recent Investor Intelligence bear readings remain at very low complacent levels. Rydex mutual fund cash levels also remain at extremely low levels. Bearish Ursa Fund Flows remain at very low depressed levels.

    There is a huge divergence between equity prices and economic fundamentals and macro data. This divergence never lasts for a long time and usually gets resolved in one way or another. The fact of the matter is that there is undeniably large amount of complacency in the market place. From the beginning of doing this investment game, I got thought a basic rule and that is:

    Bull markets top when investors ignore deteriorating fundamental backdrop and instead continue to buy at higher and higher levels, pushing prices to unadjusted levels. This last part of the bull market, where the public goes all in chasing, because they feel "they will miss the move", is commonly known as the speculation phase, as it raises on nothing but fumes.

    Last time I saw this type of a condition was throughout 2007. I am not necessarily predicting we are going to repeat 2008 mega crash, but I have been saying for several weeks since August, that risk assets like equities are now extremely venerable going into 2013.

    ReplyDelete
  15. um... "venerable" ? Do you mean vulnerable?
    Thanks,
    Mitch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I did. While English is my second language, I still blame Apple's iPad autocorrect feature hehe.

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I was trying to figure out what venerable had to do with all of this.
      I now can sleep tonight :-).

      Mitch

      Delete
  16. Tiho:

    Japan has done endless budget deficits and zero percent interest rates, central bank purchases of government debt, etc. US QE programs for 20 years. When does the Yen and Japanese government bond market snap? Japan makes the rest of the world look like spend thrifts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure what the exact date will be. Kyle Bass, a very wise hedge fund manager, would say it should have been yesterday. I think the government bond market globally, including JGBs, are extremely overvalued and according to the Kondratiev wave, the 30 year bond bull will be ending soon enough. I assume JGB yields will also rise together with Bunds, Treasuries, Gilts, Oats etc etc.

      As for the Yen, it comes down to Bernanke, Draghi and the Co. the Yen will not weaken until rates in the Western World start to move higher. Only when yields rise, will capital start to leave Japan. The Nikkei 225 could really use a weaker Yen, because out of all equity markets, that one offers amazing value after being down almost 80% over the last 22 years.

      Delete
  17. Nice piece Tiho, well researched and presented.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think aapl is going higher in the short term. Say hello to QE3 hey :D

    Check out this post as see that the old resistance has now become support - bouncy Bouncy on the market. WOW! I am must say. Very interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  19. The QE3 buying start on FRIDAY, and what happened each time this was brought in the last 2 times.

    I love they cook the books, the GDP was bad, but unemployment was good today....ha ha ha. Fool me once ey? *winks*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if you think stocks are cheap and they bounced off a new support, you should get in quick and buy before they go much higher and get away from you. As for me, I don't see any value in the US or German stock market. If I had to buy stocks, which I am not mind you, I'd consider Chinese or Japanese share market, which is very undervalued relative to Western indices.

      Delete
  20. A nicely done, excellent presentation, that is extremely hard to argue against, unless you're using CNBS fantasy data.

    I'm getting ready to start dealing with things as a "mega-setup", but I'm thinking that it might still be a few weeks to months early to get mega-short. That's based on the "tops are a process" thesis though, where we get short quick sell-offs that then are reversed to slightly higher highs with internal divergences. HOWEVER, that's not always the case, and as we can see in the sentiment chart from EWI, the 1st of the last 3 sentiment tops "processed" into a triple top, head and shoulders, while the 2nd was only a double top. Could this one simply be a spike high, last gasp reaction? It's possible in my opinion, especially when viewed in the longer term context where those 3 sentiment tops could indeed make up a longer term processed top of a bearish rising wedge exhaustion pattern. Maybe I'd better start calling it a mega-setup now.

    Thanks again for the great analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm also intrigued by this topping process, and it's not a straight forward thing. I worked very hard to get the tops in early 2007 and early 2010 and I failed both times. Catching tops and bottoms is something that everyone wants to do, for big money or bragging rights, but few actually can do correctly. It's my understanding that professional traders never do that and focus on trend following instead.

      HighRev, do you have a link to that EWI sentiment chart? I couldn't find if on EWI.

      BTW, what I did find on EWI was that total bond holdings chart: http://www.elliottwave.com/images/freeupdates/image/Investorsareonboard.jpg

      My take is, there is no major, multiyear top without a final selloff in bonds. This explains why there was no top in 1999, but there was in 2000, same with 2006 vs 2007.

      I will not short the stocks without bond holders capitulating.

      Full disclosure: 100% long PM and miners.

      Jacek

      Delete
    2. With everyone trying to short the bond bubble, one could argue that one should not short bonds until the final stock bear market and recession plays out. When Bonds spike one more time, it will be time to short Bonds and by Stocks, post recession of course.

      Delete
  21. Tiho, What I don't understand about your most recent long positioning is that you are long precious metals, which has been correlated with the risk-on equities movement. Do you see that decoupling? As I recall, in 2009, precious metals fell along with equities. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PMs and stocks do correlate on daily basis, but not necessarily follow same direction. Consider that boh Nasdaq and Silver peaked in May 2011. Fast forward to today and Nasdaq has gone up more than 40% while Silver lost more than 40%. At the same time, S&P 500 is still at the same place it was in 1999 as of today, while in 1999 Silver was around $5. Today Silver is $34, which is almost 7 times higher, while stocks have done nothing. That shows you regardless of short term correlations, fundamentals are always THE MOST IMPORTANT expect of investing.

      Delete
  22. If you are worried about Japan you will be worrying for a long, long time.

    Remember Japan, just like the United States, has it's own currency, it's own printing press.

    Think about that when you answer the questions in this short quiz:

    True or False?

    Just like a household, government has to finance it's spending out of it's income or through borrowing?

    The role of taxes is to provide finance for government spending?

    The National Government borrows money from the private sector to finance the budget deficit?

    By running budget surpluses the government takes pressures off interest rates because more funds are then available for private sector investment projects?

    Persistent budget deficits will burden future generations with inflation and higher taxes?

    Running budget surpluses now will help build up the funds necessary to cope with the aging population in the future?

    Answers? All are FALSE


    St. Louis Fed:

    “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. Moreover, there will always be a market for U.S. government debt at home because the U.S. government has the only means of creating risk-free dollar-denominated assets..."

    Governments such as the United States can never run out of dollars. It can never be forced to default. It can never be forced to miss a payment. It is never subject to the whims of "bond vigilantes".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jill, Do you have a link for the St. Louis Fed quote above. While in some sense technically correct, the glaring error lies in the government remaining operational. Yes, the FED could fabricate the money and directly fund Treasury and finance government operations with an infinite quantity of dollars. Unfortunately, that is when the currency becomes truly worthless. Practically speaking, the government does rely on credit markets and the faith of its creditors in both its accounting and the value of the currency represented. Take away the confidence in that currency and the government will no longer be operational. Will your postman walk the route knowing the paycheck at the end of the week won't by him anything?
      We may be in a slow process of manipulating the credit markets to the point that we arrive at direct monetization but the drama can play out slowly over a longer period of time than we expect. Alternatively, responsibility may reassert itself in our governance and we might return to a more traditional environment. Either way, there will be pain involved and in the very long run, governments will still be required to fund themselves through tax revenues and credit markets as the charade of printing infinite quantities of dollars cannot persist indefinitely. I will trade my goods and services for your goods and services but the confetti with a statesman's picture on it will be useless to me.

      Delete
    2. Here is the link you requested:

      http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2157

      Delete
  23. (continued from above)

    Here is how it actually works:

    Money in now mostly electronic book entries.

    When the government spends money, it credits bank reserves, The bank then credits the account of the recipient. This is called spending money into existence.

    When the government collects taxes, it debits bank reserves. The bank then debits the account of the taxpayer.

    Credits and debits. When the government credits more than it debits, it runs a deficit.

    When the government runs deficits, it net credit bank reserves. The bank then net credits the account of the recipient.

    Why does the government sell bonds when it can just credit bank accounts? It doesn't need it's own money from the population. It creates it's own money every time it spends. It never needs to borrow.

    Deficit spending leads to net credit reserves. This normally leads to excess reserves. A trillion dollars of deficit spending creates a trillion dollars of excess reserves. The banks normally don't want to hold excess reserves, so they offer them into the Overnight Federal Funds Market. That drives the overnight interest down, potentially to zero.

    So what the Fed or Treasury does is to sell bonds to drain excess reserves. It's part of monetary policy so the Fed can hit it's overnight interest rate target.

    Right now the Fed wants the interest rate at zero, so it leaves these excess reserves in the banking system.

    When the government runs a surplus, everything is the opposite. Reserves are being drained from the system and you have to put them back in. The Fed accomplishes that through open market purchases.

    What this all means is that the Fed sets interests rates, regardless of whether or not government runs a surplus or a deficit.

    Greece can't set interest rates and is exposed to the bond vigilantes.
    Japan can set interest rates and is not exposed to the bond vigilantes.

    This is what the government actually does. Nothing about policy or what government should do.

    Should the government spend more to drive down unemployment or create more reserves to drives down interest rates. These are all policy decisions.

    Interest rates will NEVER be allowed to rise in the United States>

    Here's why.

    In the year 2000, the United States paid 360 Billion dollars on it's debt.
    The total U.S. debt in the year 2000 was 5 trillion dollars.

    Fast forward to fiscal year 2012. The U.S. will pay the same amount on it's debt this year as it did in the year 2000, a total of 360 billion dollars. Except in 2012, the total U.S. debt is now 16 trillion dollars.

    How can that be?

    The Fed has manipulated interest rates lower. That is what they do.

    The average interest rate in the year 2000 was around 6 percent.

    If interest rates were to rise to 6 percent now. the U.S. would have to pay 962 billion dollars on it's debt. This will not be allowed to happen.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interest rates will rise and very soon too, we are only months or quarters from the rate bottom and Kondratiev cycle switch. For the next 30 years or so, interest rates will rise and they will eventually go much higher than 6%. Let us not forget that the great bond bull market, which has lasted for 31 years starting in September 1981, is very soon at its final peak. Maybe one more major rally, maybe not. At the top of bond prices, naturally majority always think rates will"NEVER" rise.

      Delete
    2. Jill,

      http://www.acting-man.com/?p=19769
      "One Andrew Lilico, Director and Principal at Europe Economics, meanwhile deftly dismissed the conceit that ownership of a printing press protects a nation forever from fiscal crisis if its government keeps running up an ever bigger tab:


      “Where did anyone get that idea?! It's total nonsense, unsupported by even the most casual glance at history. Did printing our own currency prevent Britain from having a sovereign debt crisis in 1976, for example?”



      Indeed, 1976 has conveniently disappeared into the memory hole – but Britain was forced to ask for an IMF bailout that year. And it sure did own a printing press at the time – apparently chartalism didn't work as advertised on that occasion (chartalism is the crank monetary theory invented by Georg Friedrich Knapp that once brought down the monetary system of the Weimar Republic and has recently experienced a revival under the moniker 'Modern Monetary Theory', or MMT for short. Why do these cranks always insist their hoary inflationism is somehow 'new'?). "

      Delete
    3. I completely agree. British Empire was the richest nation in the world at the start of the 20th century. Following the Great Depression and within the next two generations they had to default and be bailed out by IMF. It is because politicians made very similar mistakes to what Japan did in the 1990s and the US / EU is doing today. I guess one can figure out how this whole thing will play out of in the future...

      Delete
    4. One part of the Modern Monetary Theory is only concerned with the description of the monetary system, especially the system of the US. You can like it or not, but one has to admit that the description is correct.

      1976 the Britains had to repay a loan denominated in dollar. They can print pounds but they cant print dollars.

      Delete
    5. AS long as both currencies floated, They could print convert and pay. Hardly a restriction. It would result in a weaker pound but exactly who would care about that? So based on same principles as today they could have printed.

      Delete
    6. The Britains received the initial Dollar-denominated loan to support the weak Pound. Furthermore inflation was high, so printing the Pound to buy Dollar would have enforced inflationary pressure.

      The restriction on printing money is inflation not insolvency.

      Delete
  24. One more argument why this is not top yet: the stock yield exceeded bond yield again:

    http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/4625/stocksbonds2.png

    Last time we had that was 2008/2009 and before that in 1950s!!!!

    My take: bonds self off sharply near term combined with a blow up top in equities, commodities and gold. Dollar will be absolutely killed.

    After that, I don't know. Bad case of inflation, stagflation or even deflation? Very bad for stocks either way and time to short.

    Jacek

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I do not know how things will play out, I thought I'd put this forward, as I see you are expecting bonds to "sell off sharply" and "a blow up top in equities":

      "Market reactions to the Federal Reserve's policy announcement pushed the Stock / Bond Ratio more than 3 standard deviations from average, the first time in five years we've seen such a move, and only the 9th such time in 50 years. In the intermediate-term time frame of 1-3 months, it does suggest limited sustained upside for stocks. ~ Jason from SentimenTrader

      Delete
    2. Yes Tiho, this is why I sold miners and went short on banking stocks on 9/14.

      Notice that the said ratio went down to only 1 SD on the chart of interest from Sentimentrader. Looking at that chart and evaluation what happened next, there are 3 possibilities now. Either selling spree like May 2010, or buying spree like late 2010, or one more push up before selling like in April 2012. I really don't care much which scenario will play out as far if gold/miners will go up.

      But, nothing can be certain, especially with gold/PM sharply overbought by dumb money now, so I have stops in place.

      Delete
  25. I would add to my reply to Jill above that with the Fed's balance sheet holdings now at a duration of approximately 8 years, it would not take much of a rise in interest rates to leave the FED technically insolvent. The implication is that the FED can no longer run a balanced monetary policy. Yes, they can print infinitely but they are no longer in a position to tighten since a meaningful rise in interest rates will leave them with inadequate assets to absorb liquidity should that be necessary. The genie will be out of the bottle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the government can tax more than it spends to absorb liquidity. Behind the Fed stands the ability of the government to levy taxes, so in reality the Fed is never insolvent,neither in her ability to print money nor in her ability to absorb the money.

      Ben

      Delete
    2. Interesting point though it ignores that the FED does not have the power to levy taxes, only Congress can propose that. Any such legislation would not be timely. It would be an extremely cumbersome way to try and conduct monetary policy and it would incur a wide array of economic consequences beyond the liquidity effect. It's tough to imagine how dysfunctional the economy would be if it came to the point of Congress trying to bail out the FED with higher taxes. That could potentially preserve confidence in the currency, though.

      I can't believe I just wrote that.

      Delete
    3. In 1999 the "Bank Indonesia" was technically insolvent, because there was a flight from the rupia, and some other reasons. The Indonesian government stepped in and bought bonds. The government transferred the bonds to the central bank (Bank Indonesia)and the "insolvency" was avoided.

      Ben

      Delete
  26. http://moneymappress.com/pro/Pyramid0712MMR2Y.php?code=PPYRN854&n=PYRAMIDMMR12EADMMP&utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=experts&utm_content=experts&utm_campaign=bill%2Bgross

    Not sure if the link will work, but all of what is in the video certainly makes one think, that's for sure...

    Mitch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mitch,
      Thanks for posting the link. It's infomercial all right, but I totally agree with the conclusions.

      Jacek

      Delete
  27. Australia's pmi reading terrible, growth slowing. Time for more QE

    ReplyDelete
  28. I know this is already late but still, many thanks for this very detailed update. I'm on the lookout now for Silver.

    ReplyDelete